The Stanley Post

The Stanley Parable, originally a Half Life mod later released commercially, is an interesting example of interactive fiction under the trappings of a video game. Ostensibly the game is, like Dear Esther and others mentioned on this blog, a story being told to the player as they progress through its world. Very quickly, however, it turns into a sort of thesis on agency in games (and electronic literature more broadly.) At its most basic, the player is dropped into the world and told to go a certain direction. The further off-track the player gets, the more in-depth the game’s discussion on agency becomes.

Placing The Stanley Parable under a genre is difficult, even considering the more vague sense of genre in elit as compared to other media. While it carries itself as a game or game-like thing, it is much closer mechanically to the hypertext poems we read earlier in the semester. The player is given a series of binary choices–left or right, primarily–with each choice taking him or her to a different ‘stanza.’ The game-like mechanics are used to set the tone of the piece, but the only deciding factor in the narrative itself is which “link” the player chooses and at which time. The player is then encouraged to follow through each possible permutation (and occasionally scolded for searching too hard for secrets,) not entirely unlike the first few poems we read.

What makes The Stanley Parable stand out is its commentary on interactive literature as a whole, purportedly being a piece about making choices but, all along the way, noting bluntly that every choice was programmed and anticipated. There is a small moment, for instance, at which the player can find a hole in the world geometry and “leave” the game’s world. The game’s narrator then launches into a dialogue about how the player thought they had broken the game when, in reality, they were precisely where they were allowed to be.

The game is interesting in terms of electronic literature not necessary for the game itself, but the way in which it thoroughly anticipates the player. Beyond the binary choices, there are several points in the game at which it deconstructs reading strategies themselves. For instance: I have a bit of experience working with the Source engine upon which the game was built so, instead of playing the game again and again as it wanted me to, I decided to try and take a look at its inner workings by cheating. The engine’s developer features are disabled by default, so your typical reader would generally never have access to the command console. After a little digging through the game’s configuration files, however, the console can be enabled. Attempting to use it, however, results in a stern talking-to by the narrator.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teNsICR8JGY[/youtube]

Attempting to do so again earns further admonishment. At other points, attempting to open every door or spending too much time in any one room will trigger similar commentary, purposely signifying that the developer is fully aware of what the player is doing.

While certainly not the philosophically deepest example of electronic literature, the introspective nature of the game sets it apart in the sense that it knows what you’re thinking and it will say so explicitly.

  4 comments for “The Stanley Post

  1. Gracie Draper
    February 3, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    I really enjoy how you foundsonwthing that relates to your own personal gaming experience and interests. It definitely showed in your thorough analysis and outside research of the game. I think that testing the cheat codes gave such an interesting perspective on the creators’ acknowledgment of modern gaming culture. Instead of fighting the cheaters he instead turned it into something that interacts with gameplay. I like your approach to this analysis because you explored all angles of the “game”. Your comparison to our other in class assignments was helpful for some of us who are less experienced in the area of electronic lit and things related to it. Great job digging deeper. I would like to know if using the cheatncodes

  2. Steve Rechter
    February 3, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    I’m always intrigued when a game chooses to acknowledge its identity to its player. Beyond being generally humorous as in your situation, these circumstances often pose interesting questions about the nature of reality the game wishes to impose. Since the wall of the game was broken only when you cheated, it could indicate that the game drops its sense of reality to punish the player. In this instance, the narrator’s dialogue would be nothing more than a means to hinder the player from entering back into the game’s circle of reality. More interesting though, is if your cheating, and the narrator’s response to the cheating, were existent within the same reality as the game. In this sense, there exists a distant, subtle dialogue between game and player; a notion which poses numerous further questions.

  3. eng1
    February 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    I have played this game multiple times and have never even considered looking at the inner workings of the game (probably cause I can’t code lol), so it was really interesting to see that the game makers had something made in preparation of cheating. The fact that even when trying to hack into the game, the narrator still finds you, scolds you, (just like how he does when he makes you seem like you have ‘escaped the game’ ) makes the hacking just another place you are “allowed to be”. I wonder if there’s any winning to this game– or escape from the narrator. Is there any place, even with the cheat codes, that you can get to place where you are…not allowed to be? That place might just be the end of the game considering any area that exists in the game is a place the game makers created for you to exist in.

  4. February 15, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    This is excellent. I hereby authorize you to try and break any and all assigned works for this class.

Leave a Reply to Steve Rechter Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *